SKYO wrote:Because of Weber signing long term with either Philly or Nash, Edler will probably be re-signed by the of August I bet, as much as 6 years - $35M.

Pay a little more so he'll play better! and of course accept the contract, so we don't have to stress about it all season long.

I'm gonna say 7 years, $38.5mil by September 15.

$5.5 per year is probably about right.

Potatoe1 wrote:

Zamboni Driver wrote:
If he doesn't agree to something before the trade deadline, do we trade him right before a (hypothetical) cup run?

What would he bring in? a player & a couple of firsts?

Nope.

If Edler isn't going to sign here he will play out the year and his rights will be dealt before July 1.

I can't see that will bring much - Erhoff went for a 4th rounder and we were lucky to get that.

Why would a team give up much for a guy that is going to go UFA in a few weeks anyways?
And why would a guy who is weeks away from UFA sign any deal? (Erhoff & his agent were dumb IMO)
Just wait till july 1st, check out all the offers and pick the best one.

Tobias Enstrom signed a 5 year $28.75M contract. The two were comparables in their last contract and I think Enstrom's contract can be used as the cap for Edler's next contract. Edler is bigger, but Enstrom has been more offensively productive than Edler has. $5.25M a year for Edler?

Zamboni Driver wrote:
Why would a team give up much for a guy that is going to go UFA in a few weeks anyways?
And why would a guy who is weeks away from UFA sign any deal? (Erhoff & his agent were dumb IMO)
Just wait till july 1st, check out all the offers and pick the best one.

A team wont give up much for Edler after the season but that isn't the point.

The Value in keeping Edler and letting him walk as a FA is that we get to keep him this year for what will hopefully be another cup run.

Teams that see themselves as contenders rarely trade their free agents even if they don't think they can sign them.

paddy wrote:At some point having alot of money tied up on your blueline will hamper your ability to go out and solve your issues up front...

But is that a problem you worry about now, or do you clear space when you have to?

Also, the Canucks cannot afford to lose Edler.

He'll most certainly get $5M, but Gillis will have to work some magic if he can sign Edler for that amount. More likely to be $5.5M at least over 6-8 years.

The only real onerous contract on the blueline is Ballard's, but I don't see it being such an albatross when you look at what some Ds are getting paid around the league, and how many teams have big holes in their top 6.

Personally, I don't see the money tied to our defence being a problem. It won't be much trouble clearing space.

Once we re-sign Edler. we'll have 5 guys making more than $4mil on the back end. When I was a kid, it seemed defensemen rarely got paid well. Now, if you are a d-man, score a few goals, skate ok, and don't make too many mistakes, teams throw money at you.

Tciso wrote:Once we re-sign Edler. we'll have 5 guys making more than $4mil on the back end. When I was a kid, it seemed defensemen rarely got paid well. Now, if you are a d-man, score a few goals, skate ok, and don't make too many mistakes, teams throw money at you.

Well the Canucks have better depth on the blueline than most teams in the league - but yes you're correct that in this market place (where virtually every team in the league is short a top four defenseman) the ability to acquit yourself reasonably well in 20-22 minutes a game without having any huge drawbacks like health issues, a lack of size, etc.. is basically a guaranteed $3.5-5m from some team out there.

Alex Edler is by far the best offensive defenseman on the team. His skating is very good. No one on the team can spring a breakaway like Edler. He has a great shot but the vision not to use it all the time. He has an off the charts offensive IQ.

Defensively, he generally doesn't get out of position (as much as Bieksa or (obviously) Ballard), but doesn't aniticpate the play as well as Hamhuis. He can lay the body as well as anyone on the back end, but conserves this ability. He is big, and while he doesn't play huge, he is no wallflower. This restraint can frusturate fans, but we've seen he can bring it and he doesn't waste a lot of time needlessly in the penalty box.

He is, in short, the most complete defenseman on this team. And he is 26 years old. While he is not yet that #1 that can anchor a defensive unit, eat up 27 minutes per game, and allow a team to carry a barely-NHL-competent #5-7, I don't rule that out of Edler's potential and his downside for the next 6 or 7 years (absent injuries) is what to get the player we see today. And that's a very, very good player.

The criticism, near as I can tell, is that he made some mistakes. People wanted Kevin Bieska's head on a pike after the Chicago series in 2010 for the same reason, and many rumored him gone. (At that time, I had my frusturations with Bieksa, but thought the Canucks might be getting a better long term value from him than Ehrhoff and suggested that if the Canucks wanted to move a defenseman for a return, it should be Ehrhoff.) If that Canucks were to have lost to Chicago in the first round of 2011, it would be Hamhuis, whose normally cool play experienced far too many blips (that came back in goals against).

In the 2011 series against Nashville, Suter couldn't contend with the Canucks pressure and was overstretched. He was a very good player then as now, but far from perfect. His turnovers led directly to goals. Look what he got paid! Drew Doughty is another -- he quality defenseman in all zones that can do many things exceptionally well, but his play and confidence does result in errors.

Few are perfect; many whose value comes as a function of assisting the offense from the defensive position do so by taking well-timed risks. I think Edler's play is entirely in line with reasonable expectations and he is a core player.

Alex Edler will make at least $6 million per year on the FA market absent material changes in the CBA. The Canucks would do well to lock him up for $5.5 million now if that's an option.

As far as trading him, it is always reasonable to consider a player in a deal; it is all about the return. Interesting to see Weber's name mentioned, as my earlier comments on obtaining Weber have noted that Edler would likely have to be the critical piece in return.

You couldn't be more wrong.

What exactly sets Alex Edler above someone like Kevin Bieksa? Age? Sure, but if all we are looking at is age then Yann Sauve and Chris Tanev must be better than Edler, right? Shot? Definitely. But in my mind that's where it stops.

Offensively Kevin Bieksa is better than Alex Edler, and if Bieksa had the booming shot that Edler had he would likely be right up there in total points with Erik Karlsson. As it stands, Bieksa finished 2nd in the NHL in Even Strength points. Overall Bieksa finished with 5 fewer total points than Edler, in 4 fewer games. Now when you factor in Edler's PP time that makes Bieksa's offensive contributions a lot more impressive. Not to mention, at even strength, Bieksa has been playing with inferior offensive linemates and faced superior competition. Bieksa is excellent at pinching and that is how he is getting most of his points. Sometimes this comes back and bites him in the ass, but not nearly as often as people make it out to be...

Which leads me to my next point. Defensively, Kevin Bieksa is better than Alex Edler. Bieksa's CORSI and Relative CORSI numbers were both significantly better than Edler's this past season. This is even more impressive when you break down their respective zone starts. Bieksa started in the offensive zone 49% of the time, while Edler a team leading 57.8%. They both ended their shifts in the offensive zone 52% of the time. While this suggests Bieksa was able to successfully contribute to moving the puck forward, Edler was often backpeddling (relative to their zone starts). Bieksa faces a tougher level of competition...tell me, if Edler were so great defensively then why are we sheltering him and giving this role to Bieksa?

I'm not trying to rip Edler a part. In fact, I like Edler, and want him to re-sign. I think he's a key member of our team, and a very important part of our future. But that doesn't mean he's worth $6M+. Bieksa, Hamhuis and Garrison all make $4.6/4.5M. Overpaying Edler by giving him as much as $2M more than them is just ridiculous. I recognize Edler's potential and youth and wouldn't limit myself to offering him a maximum of $4.6M, but anything above $5.5M is an overpayment. Ideally I'd be happy with $5-5.25M/year on a 6 year deal.

I love you how start out a post in which you claim a player is worth about 96% of what that poster stated with the phrase "you couldn't be more wrong"..

You then write three paragraphs talking about how Edler's last season was worse than a player five years his senior (who happens to play next to one of the steadiest players in the league every night), and then wrap it up by saying "I'm not trying to rip Edler a part."

I'd also like to point out that you attempted to reduce the age difference between Edler and Bieksa to an absurdity by bringing up Chris Tanev and Yan Sauve, the fact is that Edler plays at a comparable level to Bieksa despite being further from him in age than he is from Tanev and Sauve. Perhaps that might put things into perspective for you.

Strictly in terms of contracts Edler may be roughly comparable to the other three in the Canucks top four but he is far more comparable to Dan Hamhuis and Jason Garrison than he is to Kevin Bieksa - Bieksa's deal started at age 30 whereas each of the other three hit unrestricted free agency at age 27 and signed deals locking them up for more prime years than Bieksa had left.

Oh, and PS. Why do even strength points matter when they prove how good Kevin Bieksa is but not when they prove how horribly you overrate Jack Johnson?

dbr wrote:I love you how start out a post in which you claim a player is worth about 96% of what that poster stated with the phrase "you couldn't be more wrong"..

You then write three paragraphs talking about how Edler's last season was worse than a player five years his senior (who happens to play next to one of the steadiest players in the league every night), and then wrap it up by saying "I'm not trying to rip Edler a part."

I'd also like to point out that you attempted to reduce the age difference between Edler and Bieksa to an absurdity by bringing up Chris Tanev and Yan Sauve, the fact is that Edler plays at a comparable level to Bieksa despite being further from him in age than he is from Tanev and Sauve. Perhaps that might put things into perspective for you.

Strictly in terms of contracts Edler may be roughly comparable to the other three in the Canucks top four but he is far more comparable to Dan Hamhuis and Jason Garrison than he is to Kevin Bieksa - Bieksa's deal started at age 30 whereas each of the other three hit unrestricted free agency at age 27 and signed deals locking them up for more prime years than Bieksa had left.

Oh, and PS. Why do even strength points matter when they prove how good Kevin Bieksa is but not when they prove how horribly you overrate Jack Johnson?

I took his post as suggesting that if $5.5M isn't an option right now that we should go up to what he would be getting as a UFA on the open market.

Yes Bieksa is older than Edler, but I wouldn't say that Edler is inexperienced or a raw rookie. At 26 there really isn't a whole lot more developing he has left. Some defensemen take a huge step forward around this age, while others don't. What my main points were meant to target was people's preconceived bias against Bieksa that he is an unreliable defenseman and that our other top 4 defensemen (like Edler) are better than him. You even make this error yourself by suggesting Hamhuis was steadier. Bieksa actually had the best Corsi numbers amongst all Canucks defensemen. Maybe it's time to give him some credit? And in doing so, how can you justify paying someone inferior to him a whole boatload of cash more than him?

I think you need to refresh yourself on player development curves. A defenseman experiences a much steeper development curve between ages 20-25 than he does between the ages of 26-32. So comparing someone like Chris Tanev and Alex Edler to Edler and Bieksa is a little bit ridiculous. But that's not the point I was trying to get at, especially since I think we can all agree that Tanev and Sauve (used in my example) do not have the potential to reach Edler's level (Tanev does defensively, but his offensive side is limited).

Even strength points do matter when comparing two players and their ability to produce offense. In this instance, it's clear that Edler's offensive statistics are inflated by being on the first PP unit with our top PP players. That's not to say that Bieksa would put up equal PP numbers since the reason Edler is featured in that role is because of his shot, but I wouldn't say his overall offensive game is better.

The_Pauser wrote:Which leads me to my next point. Defensively, Kevin Bieksa is better than Alex Edler. Bieksa's CORSI and Relative CORSI numbers were both significantly better than Edler's this past season. This is even more impressive when you break down their respective zone starts. Bieksa started in the offensive zone 49% of the time, while Edler a team leading 57.8%. They both ended their shifts in the offensive zone 52% of the time. While this suggests Bieksa was able to successfully contribute to moving the puck forward, Edler was often backpeddling (relative to their zone starts). Bieksa faces a tougher level of competition...tell me, if Edler were so great defensively then why are we sheltering him and giving this role to Bieksa?

I've said it before, and I'll say it now after seeing those offensive start/defensive finish numbers......Edler is the worst regular defenseman on this team when it comes to handling the puck at the point. He routinely is forced to retreat after the puck following a mishandling at the line. He's also ridiculously slow at getting over to close off the boards on the PP and ends up chasing the puck. I've seen several odd man rushes and/or scoring chances for the opponent's PK unit where Edler has been slow to the boards and the puck has gotten by him but he's taken himself out of the play by committing to sealing off the boards and is caught flat footed. After this has happened a few times he then plays more conservative and ends up not getting to the boards to stop some that he could have kept in. I just think that he's overrated, certainly he's worth the same money as Juice and Hamhuis, but I don't think he's a $6M guy.

On the other hand I think that Suter is an overrated defenseman who just cashed in large due to UFA lunacy. Suter is a slight upgrade on Hamhuis, but I'd rather have Hamhuis at $4.5M than Suter at $7.5M (or whatever it is). So Edler is probably going to cash in in the $6M range. ALthough if his numbers remain close to the same as Bieksa's, then I have to wonder if Gillis lets him go or trades him based on the "internal cap".

The_Pauser wrote:So comparing someone like Chris Tanev and Alex Edler to Edler and Bieksa is a little bit ridiculous.

Actually I think comparing Alex Edler to Edler and Bieksa is the ridiculous part of all of this.

The_Pauser wrote:
Even strength points do matter when comparing two players and their ability to produce offense. In this instance, it's clear that Edler's offensive statistics are inflated by being on the first PP unit with our top PP players. That's not to say that Bieksa would put up equal PP numbers since the reason Edler is featured in that role is because of his shot, but I wouldn't say his overall offensive game is better.

Seeing as Edler's shot misses the net by a mile 70% of the time, I don't really think numbers are inflated at all when compared to Bieksa's. Bieksa would probably get more points with regular time on the first unit because he is very good at getting shots through on net, and those shots are often designed with a redirection in mind.

I would also like to point out that Edler has played 5 full seasons with the Canucks. Bieksa has also played 5 full seasons. Edler has played 386 NHL games to Bieksa's 425 NHL games. I think that is a 39 game difference. The only development that is really seen in players in their mid-twenties that is not seen in players approaching 30 is the physical kind. The development that is seen in the mental side of the game occurs through the course of experience.

Seeing as Bieksa didn't actually slot in as a regular on the Canucks until 2006-07, but then missed the majority of the next season and Edler joined the Canucks as a call-up regular at the end of 2006-07 and then had his first full season with the Canucks the following year.....well, all things considered, the comparisson between these two players is quite reasonable.

The_Pauser wrote:Yes Bieksa is older than Edler, but I wouldn't say that Edler is inexperienced or a raw rookie. At 26 there really isn't a whole lot more developing he has left. Some defensemen take a huge step forward around this age, while others don't.

So some defensemen Edler's age continue to develop, others do not. Edler is, apparently, one who will not.

I would have thought that given Edler has shown the physical tools needed to be an elite player that the kind of development that tends to continue into one's late 20s - gaining maturity and improving decision-making and consistency - would help him improve as a player; it's not like people have their fingers crossed that he's going to improve some specific attribute that is not currently NHL-calibre.

How exactly did you arrive at the conclusion he won't be developing any further along these lines?

What my main points were meant to target was people's preconceived bias against Bieksa that he is an unreliable defenseman and that our other top 4 defensemen (like Edler) are better than him. You even make this error yourself by suggesting Hamhuis was steadier. Bieksa actually had the best Corsi numbers amongst all Canucks defensemen. Maybe it's time to give him some credit?

Bieksa is a fine defender in his own right and deserves credit for becoming a significantly better player over the last three seasons - fancy that, a defender taking a big step between ages 28 and 31.

He is not however perfect and he does benefit a lot from a steady, intelligent, talented partner on the ice with him most of the time (as any player would - it's a credit to Dan Hamhuis who has the best quality of competition numbers on the team I might add) - that's something Alex Edler did not have last year, the year before his advanced statistics were much closer to Bieksa than they were this past season.

And in doing so, how can you justify paying someone inferior to him a whole boatload of cash more than him?

We obviously don't see eye to eye on this. That being said I'll just point out that you seem to think Edler is an inferior player to Bieksa, that he is not going to close the gap between the two ("there really isn't a whole lot more developing he has left") and you still advocate paying him more than Bieksa. So..

I think you need to refresh yourself on player development curves. A defenseman experiences a much steeper development curve between ages 20-25 than he does between the ages of 26-32. So comparing someone like Chris Tanev and Alex Edler to Edler and Bieksa is a little bit ridiculous. But that's not the point I was trying to get at, especially since I think we can all agree that Tanev and Sauve (used in my example) do not have the potential to reach Edler's level (Tanev does defensively, but his offensive side is limited).

Okay, I'm not going to waste a bunch of time arguing about "development curves" and the completely arbitrary ages you've picked (that just happen to exclude Edler from the group of players still capable of improving significantly) and all that.

With Alex Edler it's not even really about some abstract concept like a "development curve" - over the last two years or so we've all seen him play games in which he looked like a dominant player, capable of impacting the game with his size and his offensive ability - we've also seen him look like a guy who should be paid in line with the other top four defensemen on this team.

As I said before it's not a matter of this player taking some huge leap in development - it's just a matter of him finding the consistency in his game to be the player we've all seen more often than not.

Basically what I am saying is, if Alex Edler develops the same way between ages 26 and 29 that Bieksa did between 28 and 31 (ie. learning not to force things, learning to be more consistent game to game and even within games) he will emerge a better player than Bieksa by a good margin. He has superior physical tools and he has much more time to learn how to use them.

The_Pauser wrote:Yes Bieksa is older than Edler, but I wouldn't say that Edler is inexperienced or a raw rookie. At 26 there really isn't a whole lot more developing he has left. Some defensemen take a huge step forward around this age, while others don't.

So some defensemen Edler's age continue to develop, others do not. Edler is, apparently, one who will not.

I would have thought that given Edler has shown the physical tools needed to be an elite player that the kind of development that tends to continue into one's late 20s - gaining maturity and improving decision-making and consistency - would help him improve as a player; it's not like people have their fingers crossed that he's going to improve some specific attribute that is not currently NHL-calibre.

How exactly did you arrive at the conclusion he won't be developing any further along these lines?

No guarantees he takes the next step, but I don't see how it makes sense to invest $6M+ long-term in him hoping that he does. It is his potential to take the next step that has me willing to go up to $5.25M for him, otherwise I would be looking at the $4.2-4.5M range.

dbr wrote:

What my main points were meant to target was people's preconceived bias against Bieksa that he is an unreliable defenseman and that our other top 4 defensemen (like Edler) are better than him. You even make this error yourself by suggesting Hamhuis was steadier. Bieksa actually had the best Corsi numbers amongst all Canucks defensemen. Maybe it's time to give him some credit?

Bieksa is a fine defender in his own right and deserves credit for becoming a significantly better player over the last three seasons - fancy that, a defender taking a big step between ages 28 and 31.

He is not however perfect and he does benefit a lot from a steady, intelligent, talented partner on the ice with him most of the time (as any player would - it's a credit to Dan Hamhuis who has the best quality of competition numbers on the team I might add) - that's something Alex Edler did not have last year, the year before his advanced statistics were much closer to Bieksa than they were this past season.

Or maybe Bieksa for once isn't dealing with a huge gash on his leg? Funny how a player gets significantly better when he isn't dealing with a significant injury.

dbr wrote:

And in doing so, how can you justify paying someone inferior to him a whole boatload of cash more than him?

We obviously don't see eye to eye on this. That being said I'll just point out that you seem to think Edler is an inferior player to Bieksa, that he is not going to close the gap between the two ("there really isn't a whole lot more developing he has left") and you still advocate paying him more than Bieksa. So..

I never said Edler WASN'T going to close the gap or surpass Bieksa. I was saying that Edler has not been better than Bieksa, so right now he is not worth more than Bieksa. I recognize Edler's potential to improve and would be comfortable paying him more than Bieksa, but around $2M more is absurd.

dbr wrote:

I think you need to refresh yourself on player development curves. A defenseman experiences a much steeper development curve between ages 20-25 than he does between the ages of 26-32. So comparing someone like Chris Tanev and Alex Edler to Edler and Bieksa is a little bit ridiculous. But that's not the point I was trying to get at, especially since I think we can all agree that Tanev and Sauve (used in my example) do not have the potential to reach Edler's level (Tanev does defensively, but his offensive side is limited).

Okay, I'm not going to waste a bunch of time arguing about "development curves" and the completely arbitrary ages you've picked (that just happen to exclude Edler from the group of players still capable of improving significantly) and all that.

With Alex Edler it's not even really about some abstract concept like a "development curve" - over the last two years or so we've all seen him play games in which he looked like a dominant player, capable of impacting the game with his size and his offensive ability - we've also seen him look like a guy who should be paid in line with the other top four defensemen on this team.

As I said before it's not a matter of this player taking some huge leap in development - it's just a matter of him finding the consistency in his game to be the player we've all seen more often than not.

Basically what I am saying is, if Alex Edler develops the same way between ages 26 and 29 that Bieksa did between 28 and 31 (ie. learning not to force things, learning to be more consistent game to game and even within games) he will emerge a better player than Bieksa by a good margin. He has superior physical tools and he has much more time to learn how to use them.

Edler hasn't had to deal with the same physical issues that Bieksa had to deal with. Edler also has almost as much NHL experience as Bieksa has. Usually plyaers develop with experience, and physically. Physical development tends to occur at the very beginning of a players career after they are drafted. The second component comes through experience and with that I fail to see how Edler's age will matter too much in comparison to Bieksa given their NHL experience.

Again, to sum this up: I do think Edler has potential, which is why I would be comfortable making him our highest paid defenseman. However, I do not feel that Edler has been our best defenseman, and the stats support me on this. Edler has had moments where if he wore the number 3 on his jersey people would be trying to run him out of town. Is there a guarantee that he will develop and improve? No. Is it likely that he will? Tough to say, but I am willing to pay to find out. I am just uncomfortable with paying him like he's a legitimate number 1 defenseman when he hasn't proven that he is one.